Spectral and temporal cues for perception of material and action categories in impacted sound sources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In two experiments, similarity ratings and categorization performance with recorded impact sounds representing three material categories (wood, metal, glass) being manipulated by three different categories of action (drop, strike, rattle) were examined. Previous research focusing on single impact sounds suggests that temporal cues related to damping are essential for material discrimination, but spectral cues are potentially more efficient for discriminating materials manipulated by different actions that include multiple impacts (e.g., dropping, rattling). Perceived similarity between material categories across different actions was correlated with the distribution of long-term spectral energy (spectral centroid). Similarity between action categories was described by the temporal distribution of envelope energy (temporal centroid) or by the density of impacts. Moreover, perceptual similarity correlated with the pattern of confusion in categorization judgments. Listeners tended to confuse materials with similar spectral centroids, and actions with similar temporal centroids and onset densities. To confirm the influence of these different features, spectral cues were removed by applying the envelopes of the original sounds to a broadband noise carrier. Without spectral cues, listeners retained sensitivity to action categories but not to material categories. Conversely, listeners recognized material but not action categories after envelope scrambling that preserved long-term spectral content.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".